SURESH S/O TIPPANNA GUDLI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

th
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100816 OF 2025

(U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT)

BETWEEN:

SURESH S/O TIPPANNA GUDLI
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. NEAR DURGA DEI (DARVESHI) GALLI,
SANTI-BASTWAD VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590018
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI KIRAN ANGADI, FOR SANGAMESH S. GULAPPANAVAR,
ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI,
BELAGAVI RURAL PS,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD 580011.

2. BASAPPA S/O IRAPPA BIRAMUTTI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DURGADEVI GALLI,
SANTI BASTAWAD, BELAGAVI-590018.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED.)














ROHAN
HADIMANI
T

Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.11.05 11:34:25
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 SEEKING TO

- 2 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


RELEASE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.7 ON REGULAR BAIL,
BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2025, PASSED
IN CRIL.MISC.NO.1369/2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 READ
WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND
SECTIONS 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
1989, IN BELAGAVI, RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.17/2019, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN S.C.NO.136/2019, BY
ALLOWING THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CAV JUDGMENT
Accused No.7, being aggrieved by the order dated
28.11.2025 passed in S.C. No.136/2019 (Crime
No.17/2019 of Belagavi Rural Police Station) by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Exclusive Special
Court, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Sessions
Court’), rejecting his application seeking regular bail for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Sections
3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the

- 3 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’), has preferred
this appeal before this Court.

2. Learned High Court Government Pleader
(HCGP) entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-
State and resisted the appeal by filing a statement of
objections. Though notice issued to respondent No.2 was
duly served, he remained unrepresented.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
28.01.2019 at about 5:00 a.m., the complainant
approached Belagavi Rural Police Station and lodged a
complaint alleging that the deceased Vishwanath was his
nephew, who had completed his SSLC and was undergoing
training in car driving. It is alleged that, on the intervening
night of 27.01.2019 and 28.01.2019, at about 1:00 a.m.,
the deceased had gone to attend a party along with
accused Nos.1 to 7 near the house of accused No.1.

4. It is further alleged that the accused persons
picked up a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted him
with a machete and a sickle, thereby causing his death.

- 4 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


Upon coming to know about the death of Vishwanath, the
complainant and the mother of the deceased rushed to the
spot and found his dead body with the head severed. On
enquiry, they came to know that, while they were
attending the party, accused No.3-Baburao Bagewadi and
accused No.4-Ravi Jiddimani arrived at the spot armed
with a sickle and a machete, respectively, and assaulted
the deceased. The other accused persons also allegedly
assaulted the deceased with an iron rod and a wooden
stick.

5. On receipt of the complaint, a case was
registered against seven accused persons in Crime
No.17/2019 on the file of Belagavi Rural Police Station.
Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a
charge sheet against all the seven accused persons for the
aforesaid offences.

6. The appellant/accused No.7 is stated to have
filed as many as seven applications seeking his release on
regular bail, all of which came to be rejected. His seventh
application, filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1369/2025

- 5 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


before the Sessions Court, was also rejected. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred
the present appeal seeking his release on bail.

7. Heard the arguments of Sri Kiran Angadi,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant on behalf of
Sri Sangamesh Ghulappanaver, and Sri Abhishek Malipatil,
learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He has no connection with
the alleged offences. According to the material on record,
the appellant had invited the deceased to join the
company of the other accused persons for the purpose of
discussing the purchase of a car which the deceased
intended to buy. The appellant was a good friend of the
deceased and had genuinely invited him to participate in
the discussion regarding the proposed purchase of the car.
The appellant had absolutely no knowledge of the alleged
intention of the other accused persons to take away the
life of the deceased.

- 6 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025



9. It was further contended that the only overt act
attributed to the appellant is that he allegedly held one of
the legs of the deceased while the other accused persons
were assaulting him. The incident is stated to have
occurred at midnight in a cashew plantation, in darkness,
and therefore, it would have been difficult to clearly
witness the individual acts attributed to the accused
persons.

10. It was also contended that the appellant and
the complainant's daughter were in love with each other
and had married against the wishes of the complainant.
Soon after their marriage, they were allegedly separated
by the complainant, who is stated to be politically
influential, and the complainant's daughter was
subsequently given in marriage to another person at his
insistence. On account of the said incident, the
complainant was allegedly nursing a grudge against the
appellant and had falsely implicated him in the present
case.

- 7 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025



11. Learned counsel further contended that the trial
in S.C. No.136/2019 has been pending for nearly seven
years and had reached the stage of final arguments. At
that stage, it was brought to the notice of the Sessions
Court that accused No.2 in the present case had lodged a
complaint against Suresh Patil and Laxman, alleging that
on 27.01.2019 at about 11:00 a.m., the said persons had
assaulted him with an intention to cause his death and had
caused grievous injuries to him. On the basis of the said
complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.19/2019 on
the file of Belagavi Rural Police Station. Upon completion
of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in the
said case, which was subsequently registered as S.C.
No.102/2020.

12. It was contended that, since the prosecution
disclosed that Crime No.19/2019 was a counter-case to
the present case arising out of Crime No.17/2019, the
Sessions Court, at the stage of final arguments, deferred
the disposal of S.C. No.136/2019 until the completion of

- 8 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


the recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses in
S.C. No.102/2020.

13. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant
was arrested on 02.02.2019 and has been in judicial
custody ever since. Having regard to the stage of the
proceedings in the counter-case, there is no likelihood of
the trial being concluded within a reasonable period.
Therefore, he sought the release of the appellant on
regular bail.

14. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant
drew the attention of this Court to the proceedings in S.C.
No.136/2019, particularly the order sheet dated
07.05.2026, wherein it is recorded that the judgment in
the present case shall be pronounced along with the
judgment in S.C. No.102/2020, which is pending before
the same Court.

15. Learned counsel further submitted that S.C.
No.102/2020 involves examination of 16 witnesses and
that the trial in the said case has not yet commenced. It is
therefore contended that, only after recording the

- 9 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


evidence of all the 16 witnesses and hearing the
arguments in the said case, judgments in both cases
would be pronounced simultaneously. Consequently, the
appellant would be compelled to remain in judicial custody
for an indefinite period, despite having been in custody
since 02.02.2019, i.e., for nearly seven years. On these
grounds, learned counsel sought to enlarge the appellant
on regular bail.

16. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for the appellant placed reliance upon the following
judgments:
i) AIR Online 2026 SC 436, in the case of
Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs. National
Investigation Agency, Jammu .
ii) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.98/2021 in the
case of Union of India vs. K.A.Najeeb
decided on 01.02.2021 .
iii) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.2787/2024 in the
case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs.
State of Maharashtra and another
decided on 03.07.2024 .
iv) AIR 2026 SC (Criminal) 333, in the
case of Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of
Enforcement .

- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025




17. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the
appellant, along with the other accused persons, had
committed the murder of the deceased Vishwanath by
using deadly weapons, namely, a machete and a sickle. It
is alleged that they severed the head of the deceased from
his body and thereby committed a brutal murder. Though
it is true that the appellant has been in judicial custody for
the last seven years, the same, by itself, cannot be a
ground to enlarge him on bail, particularly when the
offences alleged against him are punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Therefore, learned HCGP contended
that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

18. Learned HCGP further contended that, in the
counter-case registered as S.C. No.102/2020, charges
have already been framed and only 16 witnesses are
required to be examined. If the said case is taken up on a
day-to-day basis, the evidence of all the witnesses could
be completed within six months. On these grounds,
learned HCGP sought dismissal of the appeal.

- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025



19. In reply to the submissions of learned HCGP,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per
the case status report, charges have not yet been framed
in S.C. No.102/2020. On the contrary, the State has filed
an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking further investigation in
the matter. The said application is still pending
consideration and the matter is posted for clarification.
Therefore, there is no possibility of the counter-case being
disposed of within six months, as contended by the
learned HCGP.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant further relied
upon the judgment reported in AIR Online 2026 SC 436 in
the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National
Investigation Agency, Jammu . Placing reliance upon
the observations made therein, learned counsel contended
that the liberty guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution of India encompasses within its protective
ambit not only due process and fairness but also access to
justice and the right to a speedy trial. An undertrial

- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


prisoner cannot be detained indefinitely pending trial.
Once it becomes evident that the trial cannot be concluded
within a reasonable period and the accused has undergone
incarceration for a substantial period, the Court would
ordinarily be justified in enlarging the accused on bail.

21. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in the
present case also, appellant/accused No.7 was arrested by
the police on 02.02.2019 and has been in judicial custody
ever since. With regard to the overt act attributed to the
appellant, it is alleged that he held the legs of the
deceased and thereby facilitated the other accused
persons in committing the murder.

22. Learned counsel further submitted that, though
the prosecution alleges that the appellant actively
participated in the commission of the murder, he was not
aware of the intention of the other accused persons to
commit the murder of the deceased. In fact, the deceased
was a good friend of the appellant, and he had invited the
deceased to attend the party without any ulterior motive

- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


or knowledge that the other accused persons intended to
commit his murder.

23. Therefore, learned counsel contended that,
having regard to the specific role attributed to the
appellant, the principles laid down in the judgment relied
upon by him, the prolonged incarceration undergone by
the appellant since 2019 and the fact that the trial in the
counter-case has not yet commenced, there is no
likelihood of the counter-case being concluded within a
reasonable period. Accordingly, he sought to enlarge the
appellant on regular bail.

24. Having heard the submissions of learned
counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP appearing for
the State, this Court has perused the records placed
before it.

25. The specific contention of the appellant is that
the pendency of the counter-case in S.C. No.102/2020
was brought to the notice of the Sessions Court only after
the completion of the evidence in the present case.
Therefore, it is contended that, when there is no fault

- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


attributable to the appellant in the delay caused in the
proceedings, he should not be made to suffer prolonged
incarceration on account of the pendency of the counter-
case.

26. However, on perusal of the order sheet
maintained in S.C. No.136/2019, it is noticed that an order
dated 21.04.2026 records as follows:
"When the matter was posted for arguments, learned
counsel appearing for the accused filed an application under
Section 309 of Cr.P.C., seeking postponement of the
proceedings until the conclusion of the entire evidence in the
counter-case, i.e., S.C. No.102/2020, pending on the file of
this Court."

27. The aforesaid proceedings disclose that it was
accused Nos.1 to 7 themselves who brought the pendency
of the counter-case to the notice of the Sessions Court by
filing an application under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. seeking
postponement of the proceedings in the present case until
the conclusion of the evidence in the counter-case. If the
accused persons were aware of the pendency of the
counter-case, they ought to have brought the same to the
notice of the Court at the earliest point of time. However,

- 15 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


they failed to do so and brought the said fact to the notice
of the Court only when the present case had reached the
stage of final arguments.

28. Thus, it can be inferred from the sequence of
events that, despite being aware of the pendency of the
counter-case, the accused persons did not bring the same
to the notice of the Court at the appropriate stage and
sought postponement of the proceedings only after the
evidence in the present case had been completed.

29. No doubt, the right to a speedy trial is an
integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner,
particularly when there is no likelihood of the trial being
concluded within a reasonable period, is certainly a
relevant consideration while deciding an application
seeking regular bail. The principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellant are also required to be
borne in mind.

- 16 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025



30. However, having regard to the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case, particularly the
fact that the accused persons, despite having knowledge
of the pendency of the counter-case, did not bring the
same to the notice of the Sessions Court at the earliest
stage and sought postponement of the proceedings only
after the present case had reached the stage of final
arguments, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant
has not made out sufficient grounds for grant of regular
bail.

31. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of
the offences alleged, the circumstances in which the
proceedings in the present case came to be deferred and
the conduct of the accused persons in bringing the
pendency of the counter-case to the notice of the Court
only at the stage of final arguments, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be
enlarged on regular bail. Accordingly, the appeal deserves
to be dismissed.

- 17 -
CRL.A No. 100816 of 2025


ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .

Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE

MRK
CT-CMU